Literature DB >> 9921605

Sample size review in a head injury trial with ordered categorical responses.

K Bolland1, M R Sooriyarachchi, J Whitehead.   

Abstract

Between 1993 and 1996, a total of 452 patients were entered into a randomized trial evaluating eliprodil (a non-competitive NMDA receptor antagonist) in patients suffering from severe head injury. The primary efficacy analysis concerned the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), six months after randomization. This outcome was classified into three ordered categories: good recovery; moderate disability, and the worst category made up by combining severe disability, vegetative state and dead. A sample size calculation was performed prior to the commencement of the study, using a formula which depends on the anticipated proportions of patients in the three different outcome categories, the proportional odds assumption and on the relationship between outcome and prognostic factors such as Glasgow Coma Score at entry. Owing to uncertainty about the influence of prognostic factors, and about the proportion of patients in the three GOS categories, a blinded sample size review was planned. This review was performed on the basis of the first 93 patients to respond, and this led to an increase in the sample size from 400 to 450. In this paper the pre-trial simulations showing that the type I error rate would be influenced and the power would be preserved will be presented, and the implementation of the procedure will be described.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9921605     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2835::aid-sim933>3.0.co;2-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  9 in total

1.  Does the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale add value to the conventional Glasgow Outcome Scale?

Authors:  James Weir; Ewout W Steyerberg; Isabella Butcher; Juan Lu; Hester F Lingsma; Gillian S McHugh; Bob Roozenbeek; Andrew I R Maas; Gordon D Murray
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 5.269

2.  Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage (ATACH) II: design, methods, and rationale.

Authors:  A I Qureshi; Y Y Palesch
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.210

3.  Sugar or salt ("SOS"): A protocol for a UK multicentre randomised trial of mannitol and hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension.

Authors:  M J Rowland; T Veenith; C Scomparin; M H Wilson; P J Hutchinson; A G Kolias; R Lall; S Regan; J Mason; Pjd Andrews; D Horner; J Naisbitt; A Devrell; A Malins; P Dark; D F McAuley; G D Perkins
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2020-02-25

Review 4.  Excitatory amino acid inhibitors for traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  C Willis; S Lybrand; N Bellamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

5.  Effects of Glasgow Outcome Scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials.

Authors:  Juan Lu; Gordon D Murray; Ewout W Steyerberg; Isabella Butcher; Gillian S McHugh; Hester Lingsma; Nino Mushkudiani; Sung Choi; Andrew I R Maas; Anthony Marmarou
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.269

6.  Sildenafil for improving outcomes in patients with corrected valvular heart disease and persistent pulmonary hypertension: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Javier Bermejo; Raquel Yotti; Rocío García-Orta; Pedro L Sánchez-Fernández; Mario Castaño; Javier Segovia-Cubero; Pilar Escribano-Subías; José Alberto San Román; Xavier Borrás; Angel Alonso-Gómez; Javier Botas; María G Crespo-Leiro; Sonia Velasco; Antoni Bayés-Genís; Amador López; Roberto Muñoz-Aguilera; Eduardo de Teresa; José R González-Juanatey; Arturo Evangelista; Teresa Mombiela; Ana González-Mansilla; Jaime Elízaga; Javier Martín-Moreiras; José M González-Santos; Eduardo Moreno-Escobar; Francisco Fernández-Avilés
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 29.983

7.  Effect size measures and their benchmark values for quantifying benefit or risk of medicinal products.

Authors:  Volker Rahlfs; Helmuth Zimmermann
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.207

8.  Ordinal outcome analysis improves the detection of between-hospital differences in outcome.

Authors:  I E Ceyisakar; N van Leeuwen; Diederik W J Dippel; Ewout W Steyerberg; H F Lingsma
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Design aspects of COVID-19 treatment trials: Improving probability and time of favorable events.

Authors:  Jan Beyersmann; Tim Friede; Claudia Schmoor
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 1.715

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.